Evaluating the Tolerability of a Simultaneous Focal Boost to the Gross Tumor in Prostate SABR: A Toxicity and Quality-of-Life Comparison of Two Prospective Trials.

PURPOSE: Dose-escalated stereotactic ablative radiotherapy (SABR) to the whole prostate may be associated with better outcomes but has a risk of increased toxicity. An alternative approach is to focally boost the dominant intraprostatic lesion (DIL) seen on magnetic resonance imaging. We report the toxicity and quality-of-life (QOL) outcomes of 2 phase 2 trials of prostate and pelvic SABR, with or without a simultaneous DIL boost. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The first trial treated patients with high-risk prostate cancer to a dose of 40 Gy to the prostate and 25 Gy to the pelvis in 5 fractions. The second trial treated patients with intermediate-risk and high-risk prostate cancer to a dose of 35 Gy to the prostate, 25 Gy to the pelvis, and a DIL boost up to 50 Gy in 5 fractions. Acute toxicities, late toxicities, and QOL were assessed. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled in each trial. In the focal boost cohort, the median DIL D90% was 48.3 Gy. There was no significant difference in acute grade ≥2 gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity between the 2 trials or in cumulative worst late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity up to 24 months. There was no significant difference in QOL domain scores or minimally clinical important change between the 2 trials. CONCLUSIONS: Prostate and pelvic SABR with a simultaneous DIL boost was feasible. Acute grade ≥2 toxicity, late toxicity, and QOL seemed to be comparable to a cohort that did not receive a focal boost. Further follow-up will be required to assess long-term outcomes, and randomized data are required to confirm these findings.

Dosimetric predictors of toxicity and quality of life following prostate stereotactic ablative radiotherapy.

PURPOSE: SABR offers an effective treatment option for clinically localized prostate cancer. Here we report the dosimetric predictors of late toxicity and quality of life (QOL) in a pooled cohort of patients from four phase II trials. METHODS: The combined cohort included all three prostate cancer risk groups. The prescription dose was 35-40 Gy in 5 fractions. Toxicity (CTCAE) and QOL (EPIC) were collected. Multiple dosimetric parameters for the bladder, rectum and penile bulb were collected. Univariate (UVA) followed by multivariate (MVA) logistic regression analysis was conducted to search for significant dosimetric predictors of late GI/GU toxicity, or minimal clinically important change in the relevant QOL domain. RESULTS: 258 patients were included with median follow up of 6.1 years. For QOL, bladder Dmax, V38, D1cc, D2cc, D5cc and rectal V35 were predictors of urinary and bowel MCIC on UVA. On MVA, only bladder V38 remained significant. For late toxicity, various parameters were significant on UVA but only rectal Dmax, V38 and bladder D2cc were significant predictors on MVA. CONCLUSIONS: This report confirms that the high-dose regions in the bladder and rectum are more significant predictors of late toxicity and QOL after prostate SABR compared to low-dose regions. Caution must be taken to avoid high doses and hotspots in those organs.

SABR in High-Risk Prostate Cancer: Outcomes From 2 Prospective Clinical Trials With and Without Elective Nodal Irradiation.

PURPOSE: There is limited data on stereotactic ablative radiation therapy (SABR) in high-risk prostate cancer (PCa), especially regarding the role of elective nodal irradiation (ENI). This study compares 2 prospective phase 2 trials using SABR in high-risk PCa, with and without ENI. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients had high-risk PCa. Those in trial 1 received 40 Gy in 5 fractions to the prostate and 30 Gy in 5 fractions to the seminal vesicles. Patients in trial 2 received 40 Gy in 5 fractions to the prostate and 25 Gy in 5 fractions to the pelvis and seminal vesicles. National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events toxicities were collected. Biochemical failure (BF) was defined as nadir + 2, and the 4-year prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response rate (4yPSARR) was <0.4 ng/mL. RESULTS: Sixty patients were included (trial 1, n = 30; trial 2, n = 30). Median follow-up was 5.6 years and 4.0 years. The median nadir PSA was 0.02 ng/mL for both trials. Six patients had BF, all from trial 1. The BF rate was 14.6% at 5 years in trial 1 and 0% in trial 2. Sixty-three percent of patients in trial 1 and 93% in trial 2 had a 4yPSARR. Two patients died in trial 1, 1 from metastatic disease. One patient in trial 2 died of other causes. No other patients developed metastatic disease, and 1 patient in trial 1 had castrate resistant PCa. Overall survival at 5 years was 93.2% and 96.7% (P = .86). There was significantly worse late gastrointestinal and sexual toxicity in trial 1, but there was no difference in late genitourinary toxicity. CONCLUSIONS: SABR in high-risk PCa yields biochemical control rates that may be comparable to that of other radiation therapy modalities. ENI using SABR is feasible and may lead to a significant improvement in biochemical control and in 4yPSARR, without an increase in late gastrointestinal or genitourinary toxicity. Longer follow-up would provide a better assessment of biochemical control. Well-conducted phase 3 trials are needed to fully establish the role of SABR and ENI in high-risk PCa.